Science! (Herd Immunity)
OK. So a few updates since this thread was put in "sink mode" by our open minded benevolent mods.
There have been studies that seem to indicate that lockdowns have no beneficial effects.
But this doesn’t appear to be the case. Rather, the authors suggest those areas with lower covid mortality are areas where the public pursued low-hanging fruit in terms of slowing the spread. This included canceling large, crowded events and limiting travel. More stringent requirements on top of this appeared to produce no beneficial effect, and, if anything, had the opposite of the intended effect.
This study, of course, is just the latest in a long line of similar studies calling into question the assumption—for it is only an assumption—that harsh lockdowns lower mortality.
For example, back in May, researchers at The Lancet concluded that “hard lockdowns” don’t “protect old and frail” people, nor do they decrease mortality from covid-19. Later, a July study in The Lancet stated: “The authors identified a negative association between the number of days to any lockdown and the total reported cases per million, where a longer time prior to implementation of any lockdown was associated with a lower number of detected cases per million.”In an August 1 study, also published by The Lancet, the authors /fulltext" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">concluded, “Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.”
And there are studies that show public mask wearing is not very effective. I'm not sure if they studied wearing 2 masks or 3 or whatever Fauci is telling people now. Frankly it's hard to keep track where science takes us. Personally, I wear 17 masks. I'm pretty sure that makes me immortal.
Speaking of science. Apparently, the American Journal of Medicine is now saying that early treatement with Hydrochloroquine lowers the Covid-19 mortality rate. How about that?
jamie said:
Since there's very little science backing up the initial declaration in this thread - it's on sink mode. And will stay that way until I see a more robust scientific study in agreement with the declaration.
This was a pretty Busch league move.
terp said:
Speaking of science. Apparently, the American Journal of Medicine is now saying that early treatement with Hydrochloroquine lowers the Covid-19 mortality rate. How about that?
The link to the actual paper:
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext
Would be interested to hear you go into more detail as to how you are evaluating that paper against the papers referenced by the CDC here (under the "Hydroxychlorqine" heading):
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-56420397
Vaccine refuseniks are dangerous. About half of Trump voters say they will not take the vaccine. Herd immunity will elude us.
It means the virus will be endemic, leading to mutations. Its likely there will be a mutation that's more infectious, deadly and resistant to our current vaccines. So, we could end starting all over again. Which is why refuseniks endanger us. Also, its then likely that for the rest of our lives we would need to be re-vaccinated due to variants, like the flu vaccine.
So we should suffer because of them?
To get over this disease requires full vaccination. To be completely rid of it as was done with smallpox.
Refuseniks need to be "motivated" once the vaccine is easily available.
The "liberal entitled" refusers can be motivated by denying passage on aircraft and ships and entry to other countries. You want to go to France or whatever for your vacation, forget it, if you don't have vaccination proof.
Corporations that require some office work or workers in a retail locations should require vaccination. You're not vaccinated, then you're not allowed into your office or the store you work at. Grounds for termination. Same applies to transit workers.
The senior group that refuses increase our Medicare cost burden. Adjust their monthly social security Medicare cost to pay that. So instead of paying 150 a month, have them paying their actual group cost burden, 200 of 300, whatever .
Which leaves the Trump's trailer trash. What to do about them?
Since there's very little science backing up the initial declaration in this thread - it's on sink mode. And will stay that way until I see a more robust scientific study in agreement with the declaration.